Delhi Court July 1991 Judgments
Browse smarter
Open an 18-section brief on any judgment
Structured AI Brief in seconds on any result - plus Semantic Search when you need meaning, not just keywords.
- AI Brief & Ask
- Semantic AI Search
- Devil's Bench
Credentials emailed - log in to pick up where you left off.
N.D.S.E. Housing Society Residents Welfare Association and ors. Vs. Mu ...
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT37
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) This writ petition pertains to the alleged unauthorised construction of property No. B-4 and C-23 in N.D.S.E. Part I, New Delhi. It is alleged in the writ petition that in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bye-laws these properties are under construction.(2) In the reply filed on behalf of the Corporation it has been stated that there is no unauthorised construction which exists at premises No. B-4 and as such the Corporation is not taking any action in regard thereto. We do not propose, in view of the reply affidavit of the Corporation, to order any further investigation whether the reply of the Corporation is correct or not. If the petitioner has any grievance it is open to the petitioner to approach the civil Court for redress.(3) As regards to building No. C-23 is concerned the Corporation has stated that the said property was not constructed in accordance with the sanctioned plan. It is further stated that due notice was issued and served on the...
Municipal Corporation of Delhi Vs. N.C. JaIn and anr.
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-24-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT219
B.N. Kirpal, J. (1) Rule D.B.(2) The short question involved Is the rate of land in respect of the house which was constructed by the respondent in Safdarjang Develop-meat Area. The construction of the house commenced in August, 1981, according to the respondent and, thereforee, it is the market rate of land as on that date which has to be determined.(3) The Assessor and Collector applied the rate of Rs. 1800 per sq.meter on the basis of land rates circulated by the Municipal Corporation in the year 1987. The Additional District Judge, on an appeal filed by the respon-dent, applied the land rate of Rs. 940 on the basis of a circular which was issued by the Delhi Development Authority. This circular was issued by the DDA for the purpose of calculating the market rate for recovery of unearned increase in case of application for transfer or sale of the residential plot.(4) It is clear that there is difference in the rates circulated by two government agencies, namely, Mcd and the DDA. Unf...
Punjab Anand Meters Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT460TriDel
1. M/s. Punjab Anand Meters Ltd. have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Additional Collector of Customs and Central Excise, Chandigarh. Simultaneously, a stay application duly supported with an affidavit was also filed. Shri G.S. Bhangoo, the learned advocate pleaded that the applicants had claimed the benefit of Notification No. 175/86-C.E. as amended from time to time and the benefit of the notification has been declined on the ground that the applicants' unit is not a small scale industrial unit registered with the Director of Industries. Shri Bhangoo pleaded that the applicant had been filing classification lists and in the classification list benefit of the notification was duly claimed and has also attached copy of the registration certificate of the applicant's unit with the Director of Industries. Shri Bhangoo stated that there are two units, one at plot No. B-70, Phase VII, Mohali and the other at plot No. E/73-74, Phase VIII, Mohali. He pleaded tha...
Khemka Travels Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)LC625Tri(Delhi)
1. M/s. Khemka Travels have filed an appeal being aggrieved from the order passed by the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay. Shri Shyam Mudaliar, the learned advocate has appeared on behalf of the appellant.He pleaded that the Collector of Customs (Appeals), Bombay had dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appeal was not accompanied by an order-in-assess-ment which had not been issued by the group. Shri Mudaliar, the learned advocate pleaded that the bill of entry itself is an assessment order and is appealable. He pleaded that since the Collector of Customs (Appeals) did not apply his mind on merits, if the Bench accepts that the appeal was maintainable on the basis of the bill of entry to be treated as an assessment order, then the matter be remanded to the Collector of Customs.2. Shri S.K. Roy, the learned SDR who has appeared on behalf of the respondent, stated that the Collector of Customs (Appeals) had dismissed the appeal for not attaching the order-in-assessment. Shr...
Shere Punjab Silk Store Vs. Income-tax Officer
Court: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: (1991)39ITD469(Delhi)
1. These 8 appeals by the assessee for assessment years 1979-80 to 1982-83 arise out of three orders dated 22-12-1986, 9-9-1988 and 9-9-1988 passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) and pertain to penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a) and 271(1)0) of the Income-tax Act. As identical issues are involved, these appeals are disposed of by a combined order, for the sake of convenience.2. We shall first take up the appeals pertaining to penalties levied under Section 271(1)(a) of the Act.Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is a firm which consisted of three partners, namely, S/Shri Harbhajan Singh, Joginder Singh and Manmohan Singh. The three partners also happened to be brothers. The position of due date of return, the date on which returns were filed, the delay involved, the penalties imposed etc., is depicted below: ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------Asst.Return Extension Extension Return Delay for Amount ofyear due ap...
Ravinder Nath Sahni Vs. Delhi Development Authority
Court: Delhi
Decided on: Jul-22-1991
Reported in: 45(1991)DLT226
B.N. Kirpal J.(1) RULE.CMS 4649 and 4872/90(2) Vide order dated 11/10/1990, the petitioner was required to deposit a sum of Rs. 8,65,000.00 and the demand of the Dda was to remainstayed. We find that the demand of the Dda is for a sum of Rs. 22,31,453.00.According to the Dda, its demand consists of Rs. 18,91,062 on account of50% un-earned increase and Rs. 3.40.391.00 being the interest @ 18% perannum. According to the Dda, the seller did not file a complete application for permission to sell because No Objection Certificate under the Urban Land(Ceiling and Regulation) Act, 1976 was not attached. This certificate was filed only on 3/04/1987 and it is thereupon that the application becamecomplete. Because the Income-Tax clearance certificate was filed in 1988, that is why the Dda is seeking to charge interest of Rs. 3,40,391.00. The 50% unearned increase of Rs. 18,91,062.00has been worked out on the basis of the price of land as on 3/04/1987, the date the application was completed.(3) As...
Micro Labs Ltd. Vs. Collector of C. Ex.
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)LC568Tri(Delhi)
The appellants manufacture medicines for human as well as for veterinary use. Some of the veterinary products were used as feed supplements for animals including birds. They manufactured the following items viz. (1) Clopidox powder (2) Trivet Boluo 5's Tablets (3) Tridox Bolus 10's Tablets (4) Pinmit Vet Powder (5) D.L. Tetramisole Powder (6) Sulphadiazin and (7) Trimethoprim Bolus Tablets and classified them under TI-68 of the Schedule to the Erstwhile Central Excise Tariff. They also claimed exemption under Notification No. 234/82 dated 1-11-1982 which grants full exemption in respect of animal feed and supplements. The Range Officer of Hosur Range issued a show cause notice on 10-12-1986 proposing re-classification of the items under TI 14E (P or P Medicines) stating that those veterinary products were not animal feed supplements and, therefore, not eligible for the exemption claimed, and demanded duty for the period from October' 1984 to February' 1986 under Section 11A of the Cen...
Oil India Ltd. Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)(37)ECC89
1. The appeal has been filed against the order dated 18-12-1989 passed by the Collector of Customs and Central Excise (Appeals), Calcutta by which he had upheld the order of the Assistant Collector of Customs, (ARS), Custom House, Calcutta dated 16-8-1989 rejecting the refund claim of the appellants herein holding that they are not eligible for exemption under Notification No. 333/88 dated 31-12-1988, as amended by Notification 11/89 dated 23-1-1989. The brief facts are that the appellants who are engaged in the exploration and exploitation of Mineral Oil and Natural Gas imported a consignment of Polyanionic Cellulosic Polymer equivalent to Drispac (Multicel P) which was cleared on 8-2-1989 on being assessed to duty under Heading 3912.90 Customs Tariff Act, 1975, read with Notification No. 88/77 and 157/88. The appellants filed a refund application subsequently amounting to Rs. 5,66,965.00 on the ground that the goods imported are covered by Exemption Notification No. 333/88 dated 31-...
Collector of Central Excise Vs. Rubamine Processors
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)(61)ELT716TriDel
1. This is an appeal against the order dated 12-6-1986 passed by the Collector of Central Excise (Appeals), Bombay preferred by the Collector of Central Excise, Vadodara. The brief facts of the case are as follows: 2. M/s. Rubamine Processors are engaged in the manufacture of Zinc Oxide falling under T.I. 14 of CET. They commenced manufacture of the aforesaid goods from 1-12-1983 and during the year 1983-84 they cleared the said goods, worth Rs. 6,88,772.50 claiming exemption under Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983. In the year 1984-85 the assessee filed classification list effective from 1-4-1984 for the said product claiming exemption under Notification 74/78, dated 1-3-1978 (as amended) but they did not indicate that they want to avail exemption under Notification No. 83/83, dated 1-3-1983 during the Financial Year 1984-85 in respect of the aforesaid goods. On the contrary they subscribed declaration to the following effect in the aforesaid C.L. (4) We do not want to avail exe...
Astro Optical Industries Vs. Collector of Customs
Court: Customs Excise and Service Tax Appellate Tribunal CESTAT Delhi
Decided on: Jul-19-1991
Reported in: (1992)(57)ELT462TriDel
The assessment of "lens blanks" imported by the appellants is to be determined in these appeals, which, involving a common issue, are being heard together and disposed of by this common order.No. C/3437/88-D - The goods described in the invoice as lens blanks were examined and the importer submitted that they would be used on overhead projectors after being optically finished. The goods were classified under Heading 70.14 of the Customs Tariff as "optical elements of glasses which have not been worked". Assessment under Heading 7011.10 as "rough opthalmic glass blanks, including flint buttons" was ruled out as the goods were to be used for magnifying in overhead projectors and not for opthalmic use and they were classified under Heading 7011.90.No. C/1012/89-D - The goods are "Lens Blanks B-270" as per the invoice and declaration in the Bill of Entry. As neither the invoice nor the leaflet indicated that they are Rough Opthalmic glass blanks, they were classified under Heading 7011.90...
- ‹ Prev
- 1
- 2
- 3
- 5
- 6
- 7
- 8
- 9
- Next ›
- Last »